I find myself often ending up in discussions with others about this topic, so I thought I would open it up to discussion as a post and explain my point further. I can't make you believe or see anything that you don't want to see and vice versa, but perhaps I can present a solid enough case to explain why I feel this way and maybe create some critical thought in the process. My entire premise for this post is that laws do not can cannot give you a right or protect you. In fact, while many people believe the legal system is built to protect you, it's actually put in place to control you and offers you no actual protection.
The only law that matters in the end is a persons morality. Any government in the world can write laws preventing any citizen from owning a gun, shooting someone, illegal to throw acid on someone's face, or illegal to sell drugs. Here's the simple fact, no matter what any piece of paper or "governing authority" says, each individual makes their own decisions about following those laws. There can be all the repercussions or promises of negative retaliation in the world, but if someone decides they are going to kill another person or hurt them, those laws are meaningless. If a person decides that they don't want to follow ANY law, the whole system is kind of pointless.
We create our own laws through our own self awareness and sense of morality. We are the only force that can ever truly hold ourselves responsible for our actions. We are also the only person that can ever forgive ourselves or pardon ourselves for those crimes. A government can tell someone that they were too young to know better and that what they did shouldn't ruin their whole life or a lawyer can try to persuade a court to rule for consecutive sentencing on multiple crimes. The whole point is that no matter what anyone else says or what punishments they impose, we hold ourselves accountable and decide what we will or wont do again.
I feel I've presented enough logic as to why no one or nothing can control what another person does and going further would just be reiterating the same logic with different examples. This raises the question of what governments actually do when they create these "laws" to give you "rights." Well that in itself is a logical fallacy, why would I need someone to give me permission to do what I am already able to do and aware enough to decide for myself? Laws are at best a suggestion of "preferred" existence that was decided for you by people with an agenda. The agenda is to make you into a good slave that pays taxes and doesn't ask questions. They don't want you to think for yourself, because then you wont need them and they wont be able to tax you.
I'm definitely open to hearing any solid counter arguments to these facts, but normally all I get is someone telling me that I'm privileged based on where I live or that I'm crazy. My only real response to that line of thought is, have you ever watched the news? Are you unaware that even though these laws exist there is still corruption in our governments? Are you unaware that people still kill people? Are you unaware that people still make choices to do "illegal" things even though those laws exist? I think if the world would just stop considering that everything they learned in a public education system was the indisputable truth and started thinking for themselves, they would quickly realize how idiotic this whole "governmental system" actually is and that it hinders our freedoms.
i agree that regardless of "law" people are gonna do what they're gonna do. Lets take perhaps the worst possible offense....you decide to take someone's life just because you want to know what it feels like to do so. Okay, you just broke a law. Maybe you liked doing what you did. Maybe you didn't like it. Regardless of whether you're going to be a repeat offender is asides from the point. You were really careful not to get caught. And you don't. Or maybe you do. Fact is the law didn't protect that person you killed from being killed. Unless you were a well known criminal, the law governing bodies would be the least likely to even pay you any mind. Regardless the outcome - caught, not caught, repeat offender, never did it again - the fact remains the law could NOT protect that person you killed. Why would they even be concerned about a middle aged woman in a small town that works as a waitress?
there are some instances the law can protect you though. Say there were burglaries in your area, now a cop watches your house constantly. Obviously not gonna get robbed but only bevause someone else has to get robbed first for you to have protection
interesting debate. Resteeming
:) Thanks for discussing this. I feel like on the second point, it's more of the same though. Nothing is stopping that cop from taking a bribe or intervening on your behalf except their own morals and convictions. There's plenty of cops out there that would be just as likely to be the one breaking into your house and shooting you and claiming they thought you were the intruder. Probably get away with it too in many places. It's sad honestly, but if we spent as much time and money on teaching people about self awareness and morality as we do enslaving people, I think we'd be in a much different world. One where this whole post never even needed to happen. The worst thing about all of it is that people are just now really gaining any kind of awareness of how corrupt our political system really is and I still half way feel like that's being allowed as justification to "clamp down" on more freedom. If only the "good guys" were always "good guys" and the "bad guys" were always "bad guys" the world would be a much simpler place, but we're just all so complicated.
Our political and judicial system is absolutely horrible. Double standards left and right. Yeah you make a fair point about my second point. Could go any myriad of ways. Crooked law enforcement everywhere
Discussing it and raising awareness causes change :) @son-of-satire is getting a deep diver debate team together and I had recommended you. Sign up on his post if you want to join in, it's still in the "formulation" stages.
Cool. Sounds fun. Let me head on over and check that out. Thanks! !
@clayboyn i don't think i see it
I think i found the post you're talking about. Tagged u in the comment
Theoretically in the US, our individual rights are inalienable, and are granted by the simple fact of our existence as people. Recognizing that some people tend to use their freedom to impinge upon the freedom of other people, our 'founding fathers' attempted to establish when such impingement is okay and when it is not - and further attempted to devise sensible procedures for modifying these established judgments as circumstances warranted.
Of course, legal person-hood in the US was limited to white male property owners in the 18th Century. As this narrow definition of legal person-hood was expanded to include an ever-greater cross section of the US population, increasingly diverse perspectives became or threatened to become politically legitimate, and the procedures for determining when it was and was not okay for one person to use their freedom to impinge upon another person's freedom quickly proved incapable of equitably accommodating such increasingly diverse perspectives.
By this point, although the purpose of government in the US theoretically remains the protection of our naturally-endowed freedom, this purpose tends to be poorly served by what those in our government actually do. But at the end of the day, there remains widespread agreement that the government is a legitimate arbiter of social reality, however insane the results.
By human action coordinated over time, social reality is translated into the physical reality with which we must contend. Your post suggests that you are dissatisfied with the physical reality produced by the social reality in which you are embedded. My question for you, then, is this: What, exactly, might produce changes in your social reality that would give you cause to support the agreements which hold this reality together?
I would think that redefining victim as someone who has had their free will taken or infringed upon and removing all laws that create victimless crimes would be a good start. Changing the education system to teach things that make children more self aware instead of more supportive of and reliant on the government would help. Removing any old state and local laws promoting segregation or entitlement. Removing overgrown and out of touch bureaucracy. Stop charging "free people" for the "right" to leave the country. Lots of things could help change our reality.
Totally agree that these things would make sense. However, these items are overtly political, and I'm viewing politics as hopelessly broken at present, so I'm more interested in getting underneath political reality to the social reality from which it necessarily springs.
If we assume that people are inherently free, and acknowledge the possibility that people are freely choosing - time and again - to interact with each other and the larger world in such a way as to (re)produce our increasingly wrong political system, then perhaps (a) many people have no idea what they are doing, and/or (b) many people do have an idea of what they are doing, and our social reality is to their liking. So what manner of communications/interactions with each type of person might produce changes in their thinking that would translate through their actions into a future social reality that makes more sense?
It ultimately boils down to changing the way people think. Most of us are raised with a scarcity mindset which teaches our ego to keep a running negative dialogue in our head. I can't do such and such because I need to go to work. I need to go to the job because I have to pay the bill. I have to pay the bill because I need the thing. I need the thing because so and so will judge me if I don't have it. I need them to like me because I'm not self aware enough to like myself and I care what other people think. Ultimately, I believe it's required to lead by example. We have music, movies, art, and even writing/discussions like this that raise awareness and make people think. Change the minds and change the world.
Playing devil's advocate here, you brush with a broad stroke in assuming that, "If a person decides that they don't want to follow ANY law, the whole system is kind of pointless."
Someone could easily argue that the legal system protects the people who have decided to follow laws--legalists; that is to say, those who follow the letter of the law as a matter of course--from those who violate those laws, and who might violate the rights of the legalists.
Further, I also see a possible counter to your point here: "This raises the question of what governments actually do when they create these 'laws' to give you 'rights.' Well that in itself is a logical fallacy, why would I need someone to give me permission to do what I am already able to do and aware enough to decide for myself?"
So, let's accept that everyone subject to these laws are both capable of doing what law permits, and that everyone is aware enough to decide whether or not to do something for themselves. Accepting that, we must ask about how these capacities of action and decision affect those subject to laws. In that case, then, we must acknowledge the capacity of the subject to decide upon a course of action that the law forbids. As an example, murder: one may decide to murder someone, and succeed at it. In that case, doesn't a law forbidding murder codify the victim's right to live, and protect the life of possible victims with a threat of imposing punitive measures?
I do believe (and would guess you believe the same) that "rights" precede "laws," and that the legal system functions largely as you described in saying, "while many people believe the legal system is built to protect you, it's actually put in place to control you," I just don't think your argument is airtight. In the interest of strengthening it, I've offered two examples with which one might argue that the legal system (or simply a legal system) does protect, or attempt to protect, the rights of those subject to that system. Certainly looking forward to reading any replies to the arguments offered above.
Laws are either agreed upon or disagreed upon and they are never unanimous. 99 people may agree that we shouldn't kill each other, but as long as 1 person out there thinks it's okay, that law is just another imaginary line to them that they feel completely justified in crossing. If they would feel comfortable taking another person's free will they have no fear of taking everyone's. If instead that person was taught from a young age why free will is important and that respecting each others freedom and liberty is the only way to ensure our own perhaps we could change some minds. Obviously the imposed "punishment" or whatever threat the law poses to them isn't getting the point across because people are still killing each other even with the threat of governmental retaliation. If people are still getting murdered and these laws exist, then what protection is it offering?
That's a massive stretch, but also why I think we need to approach this problem from a different direction so that people do become that aware and grasp the full severity of their decisions.
I'm saying your right to exist shouldn't be trusted to a "law." We all have a right to exist and pretending like some government gave us that right is a joke. If the government gives me the right to live and thus protects that right, then I truly am a slave and nothing more than a possession of that government which gives me the right to exist.
I appreciate the different perspective, I was using murder as one of my main examples because it's the ultimate removal of someone else's free will/right to exist, but we all know the majority of laws are restrictions. It's illegal to buy or sell marijuana in most of the U.S. for example. That doesn't give me anything, that takes away. There's a law that I have to register a vehicle with the government, that's not giving me anything and it's costing me money. Rights are something we are born with, laws are restrictions put in place to control those rights, and I don't see where any government in the world has a "right" to tell me that I have the "right" to live.
Rights are every bit as much a fiction as laws are- witness the murderer can remove your right to live by rendering it inconsequential after the fact, just as easily a "the government", or a microbe/cosmic ray/any other random cause of death.
There is absolutely NO objective significance to the concept of "rights".
What is the difference in the ideal if the government grants you some right, versus God, whose existence is disputable, whereas the physical manifestation of a government is not, versus your declaration of some innate right?
We all know the difference ITRW.
The governments much like God are only as real to anyone as they believe they them to be. I couldn't make anyone believe anything they don't want to believe or them me. The point is that there is very clear evidence and logical reasoning to support the fact that governments create laws and assign "rights" as if they have to give you permission to exist and find ways to restrict that existence into what they want it to be.
The second part of your last sentence I agree with somewhat- but can you explain that first part?
Also, I don't think ANYONE can dispute a government's objective reality successfully in the case of war, for instance- and the world is NEVER at peace, so I think you have to grant its continuous existence, not just as some ephemeral metaphenomenon.
I totally accept the subjective reality of God, but can't come up with any demonstrable objective support (I don't need it myself, but there's a raft of anti-theists in the world who insist that without objective proof, God doesn't exist, CAN'T exist, and anyone who can accept subjective reality as "good enough" deserves ridicule they're glad to deliver).
When you are born in a country, like with the U.S. you are automatically made an extension of that country due to citizenship, which is a "right" given by the government. What other "rights" you are given depends on the country and it's particular laws, but the laws that are in place are all essentially parts of politics and decisions you had nothing to do with. You are raised in education systems controlled by the same government that basically forced you into being a part of it without ever asking your permission. You are then taught that this entity that has controlled your whole life is doing it for your benefit and that questioning it or doubting it is unpatriotic and of course you don't want to be unpatriotic, because they also teach you that they are the best there is and going anywhere else is dangerous or less "free." The point is that all of these thing inherently influence your free will from a young age and play a part in the course of your life. That's the logical part of it. As far as evidence, do I really need to go find sources? Declassified government documents make it clear there is always an agenda to control the masses, I mean the Patriot Act alone was more or less, "give up some of your freedom to protect the rest of it." That's without even getting into the events leading up to it being legitimate or false flag.
Addressing your reply in a rather slipshod manner, let me begin with a quote from it: "If instead that person was taught from a young age why free will is important and that respecting each others freedom and liberty is the only way to ensure our own perhaps we could change some minds."
Wouldn't that be great? It almost sounds like 'the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'; that is to say, you're describing a system that teaches children from a young age that individuals have inalienable rights. Accordingly, public schools teach children that they have rights (besides being inalienable) also have the guaranteed protection of law. The only difference in the society that you propose is that these we wouldn't teach these children that their rights had any legal protection.
Obviously, I can't and wouldn't say that our punitive legal system has succeeded in eliminating any crime. On the contrary, it invents crime where none exists, and frequently promotes the crimes it has established; ex: police quotas. I'm simply saying that the society you envision amounts more or less to necessarily teaching children (lest we make them naive) that some people will refuse to recognize their rights, and possibly kill them. If you can imagine how to offer them some sense of safety and protection besides a legal system of some kind, I'm all ears. To answer your question, "what protection is it [the law] offering?" from within this framework, I reply that what I called 'the guaranteed protection of law' is an illusion for children that may or may not prove useful. Although it's certainly a useful one for the committed 'legalist.'
Moving on:
"That's a massive stretch," you replied, but it's a stretch that I read from your original post. I will quote the passage again:
"This raises the question of what governments actually do when they create these 'laws' to give you 'rights.' Well that in itself is a logical fallacy, why would I need someone to give me permission to do what I am already able to do and aware enough to decide for myself?"
If we don't accept the massive stretch you introduced, then we forget about people who may lack capacity or awareness. The execution of mentally-disabled persons counts as just one example of the legal system addressing a demographic which some may reasonably consider lacking that capacity or awareness which you had originally assigned to yourself, and implicitly (one hopes), to the rest of humanity.
Of course, in situations concerning the execution of the mentally disabled, we're still talking law in terms of punishment. I don't intend to re-frame the legal system away from its obvious nature here. I had only intended to point out the underlying assumptions of your argument, while at the same time accepting them for the sake of making the point I thought more important to emphasize.
Next:
You wrote, "I'm saying your right to exist shouldn't be trusted to a 'law.' We all have a right to exist and pretending like some government gave us that right is a joke." Let me now reaffirm that rights precede laws. However, from the perspective of the legalist, these rights would thus produce the laws which protect them. Perhaps my legalists are your slaves, except I wouldn't go so far as to say so, due simply to my previous sentence's conceit of the hypothetical legalist. Someone who believes, however, that rights arise from law would fit your description perfectly.
Finally, I agree with the thrust of your final paragraph. I would even say I agree with it entirely, except that I feel the need to emphasize that the perspective I have offered has not been my own, but rather one invented purely for the purpose of discourse. In fact, I pretty much agree with you in spirit, if you couldn't tell already: I seek only to refine the practice and the rhetoric; or, as we might say otherwise, to conceptualize a society which has the protection of rights in the absence of a punitive legal system, and to create more compelling arguments for the establishment of that society.
The biggest problem with laws is that they protect the rights of some, in some cases and other cases they are just completely asinine, but they also infringe on the rights of others. The protection being offered by any of these laws is the illusion and entire point of the discussion. If someone is mentally unstable or disabled to the point that they are incapable of comprehending the laws then it's ultimately irrelevant because they first and foremost have no comprehension of what they are supposed to abide by and secondly don't have the capacity to determine if their actions do or do not comply.
It's obviously not an easy situation to deal with these problems, but any illusion that a law is protecting these individuals or us from them is just more separatist fear based logic. A person couldn't be incapable of comprehending and complying and also capable of benefiting from a law so it's essentially the same as police reading Miranda Rights to a criminal that doesn't speak English or know the laws.
The government has no need to protect or permit anything if they aren't the one giving you the right in the first place. All laws are fundamentally built off the original concept that it's the governments sovereign duty to give you the rights you are born with. If this entire bureaucracy didn't exist in the first place, the laws would never exist and the whole discussion would be pointless. I would argue that being born gives us all an equal right to exist and that simplifying all of the technical garbage created by the legal system to give out illusions of necessity or benefit from their existence is really just no different than telling children Santa Claus is real or the Easter Bunny exists.
Perhaps giving people the illusion of safety is really the problem in the first place. I would argue that telling people they are offered any real protection because a law makes something illegal is giving them a false sense of entitlement. If someone feels that the government is responsible for their well-being then they aren't as focused on becoming self sufficient and capable of sustaining their own existence. Perhaps with a stronger sense of community and less scarcity based mindset taught by the education system people would be more willing to help each other and realize that we are all responsible for ourselves and SHOULD feel a moral obligation to share and help those that can't help themselves so that those that are sick, disabled, elderly, mentally ill, or for whatever reason incapable of caring for themselves are also our responsibility because we should respect their right to exist as we do our own.
Edit: You are right about the massive stretch statement. I can't expect to hold myself or others to a different standard, but at the same time it's obvious not everyone is concerned about the reality of the situation. There is always going to be the issue of when the majority decides to stop accepting these "laws" as acceptable or necessary and it probably won't go over well. Slowly over time with discussions like these, the changes that are occurring in movies, music, and society will hopefully create the situation to start these changes over time. I have never been pro violent revolution and I feel like the only real revolutions are the ones that take place in our minds.
"If someone is mentally unstable or disabled to the point that they are incapable of comprehending the laws then it's ultimately irrelevant because they first and foremost have no comprehension of what they are supposed to abide by and secondly don't have the capacity to determine if their actions do or do not comply."
I would agree that this is irrelevant if the legal system didn't also include laws to protect those incapable of comprehending the law. See Connecticut General Statute § 53a-46a (h)(3) (2009), which makes illegal the execution of inmates whose "mental capacity was significantly impaired or [whose] ability to conform [their] conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired but not so impaired in either case as to constitute a defense to prosecution[.]" So, at least within the framework of the legal system, we have a protection of a right to life (which I would call an inalienable right) even for those subject to punishment under the law, according to their ability to comprehend the law. I believe the state later outlawed capital punishment entirely, but the point stands: mental impairment isn't irrelevant to the law. With that in mind, we're forced to accept the massive stretch you offered [...]
I shall end my debate response here, because I have now read your edit to the original post, and I must admit, I find the act of imagining the society without laws more productive and more interesting than my previous aim. I have enjoyed discussing this with you, and hope these changes come to pass.
I always love discussing this stuff. :) You bring up many valid points and the mental health debate will never go away, but until some magical day that it is irrelevant, it always will be a major issue. Thanks for discussing your views!
I'm not arguing against moral education as THE best arbiter of the clash of individual rights, because I agree, if only from the principle of least unnecessary suffering- but WHOSE morals? HOW is moral education made so readily available that there is essentially no force involved to inculcate positive social values in virtually EVERYONE?
There are going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 250 million different answers to the first question in the US- nearly every single adult and adolescent is going to insist they have the correct one (leaving out the incapacitated and those TRULY too young), and far, far fewer, nearly no-one, I'd say, has the answer to the second.
I proposed the only law that I feel holds any real value or meaning. Do not take away another person's freedom or infringe upon it. The disputes related to that possible universal law would all be ego and scarcity related which is why education and more self awareness are necessary.
You've already deprecated public education as brain-washing for the slave class (I don't completely disagree, but without it, I would never have been able to pursue a technical degree.)
What's your proposal to accomplish this education and heightening of self-awareness, i.e., your answer to my second question?
Incidentally, have you ever taught a large group of children for any extended term? Especially something like morals and ethics?
My proposal is that from a young age you were taught to follow your passions and do what you want to do to be a productive member of society. I don't know you personally, but I find it highly unlikely you were a 5 year old wanting to go to technical school. If say your passion was designing and coding something on a computer or working with mechanical parts to understand how they all work in unison, that you would have pursued that from a young age and been able to learn from people that are doing these things. The whole mindset would be different because you would have never thought that what you are capable of doing has anything at all to do with a degree, but in turn comes from experience and your ability to prove it. Children aren't naturally born with a scarcity mindset. Children are born with a view of the world as abundant, which is obvious in their nature to want to see and do and touch and interact with everything. They learn scarcity through people telling them what they can't do instead of encouraging them towards what they can do. No one is born racist, no one is born to be poor, and no one is born to be rich or judgmental of others. These are all things learned from parents and teachers. I've spent enough time teaching children things to know that we as a society are failing them horribly. Approaching things from positive perspective as opposed to a negative and limiting one changes their entire developmental process.
That's right. The law is made by the government to be able to manage our lives. We must obey the rules. The point is that governments make rules, but they themselves break them, in order to protect the interests of their groups.
Great article and I love the video!! I'm 55 and can't believe I'm still alive but 'm grateful that there are good people in the world who value diversity and embody empathy and compassion. Upvoted followng and supporting bright minds with big hearts. Thank you for sharing.
:) Thanks for the support.
Thanks so much for writing about this topic as I believe it needs to be talked about more often. The dialogue on this thread is very cordial as well, which, to me, is a good sign of people willing to listen to dissenting opinions. Or maybe us Steemians are just more polite than others. I wrote a lil piece the other day similar to this that I think a few might like to check out. https://steemit.com/politics/@intothewild/can-we-please-stop-saying-there-oughta-be-a-law
I think the main point I try to drive home is that legality does NOT equal morality, and if more people realized this we would be much better off. Thanks again for speaking up.
in the swamps of my mind, i have asked myself, what exactly prevents me from stealing someone elses property or even to kill someone. And a very boiled down reason would be,that i would have to go to jail, and since jails are unpleasant, you don't want to end up there. So what does that mean? It means that the Fear of losing my freedom prevents me from doing these things.(not to mention its immoral as fuck to kill or steal from a mental standpoint) But on the on the other side of the argument, laws provide structure in which, you and me can benefit while respecting social contracts like "don't do to others,that you wouldn't want to be done to you" kind of things.
Laws are a system that creates structure so that everything doesn't fall it to chaos, while most of your points seem cohesive the alternative to Order is chaos.
great post btw
EDIT: we sometimes take for granted the things we benefit from, and keen in on things that are negative, from a logical standpoint you are absolutely right, but i think that in practice, we wouldn't survive 150 years if this way of thinking would become mainstream. But as i agree with most of what you say, i think its a really great unpopular opinion
Great article.
Thanks for the support!
I agree that many laws are simply a way of keeping citizens in check and under the thin of government. For example, I am a land "owner" but if I don't pay my property taxes every year then the government will come take my home and land. So, do I actually open it or am I leasing it?
I am a former police officer and Detective. Many laws serve no purpose other than giving us the ability to fuck with people. I will about that I used stupid laws for probable cause to mess with known drug dealers and other criminals. One other thing that became obvious is that no law is going to protect you if someone wants to cause you harm. What a law will do is lay out what the punishment is if that person is found guilty of violating said law.
I believe in laws to a certain degree. The constitution is a good starting point, limited government with a very narrow role. We literally have 100,000+ laws on the books, this is nonsense. Without putting long term thought into this here is a list I just came up with.
Federal Government:
Defend the country
Tax on imports only
Coin Federal Money
Diplomatic relations
All other authority delegated to the states
States:
Militia to defend the state
Appeals court for county cases to be heard
Sales tax if authorized by state reps who have term limits
Local:
Sherrif Department
Laws only in regard to harm of others
Portion of sales tax defined by state reps
Any other services should stem from the local level and only from a ballot measure.
Basically, government stay the fuck out of our lives.
I like the way you think!
now i am following
Interesting ideas. I do think that people MUST be more aware of their own ideas and actually have some type of moral code of their own. However, I think the ideas that laws don't matter is a little generalized. I think in certain situations laws can limit resources that would otherwise give those with perhaps harmful ideals (and I mean harmful to others in a physical sense, such as a mentally unstable person owning an automatic weapon) in a very important way. So a law banning abortion for example wouldn't necessarily stop a woman from getting an abortion but it would in fact make the resources necessary for this process quite difficult and potentially very harmful to the woman.
Just my two cents. Thanks for always sharing through provoking material.
now i am following